gameofthronesfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Cupbearer
Is this necessary? This isn't an advertisement for cupbearers. We are not selling them. Is this page really necessary? If it is it needs to be completely reworded or even renamed to a "Servant" page. Son Of Fire (talk) 07:23, July 21, 2014 (UTC) : I thought it could be interesting to take a look on it. A cup-bearer is a servant, no question about that. But he is higher in the rank, and don't forget that the characters who were cupbearers played significant roles, like Arya in Harrenhall! I haven't finished my work and build the article up in the next time! --Exodianecross (talk) 07:49, July 21, 2014 (UTC) ::I don't see how it's an "advertisement for cupbearers, as if we were selling them"....Cupbearers are a thing in their world. I'm not sure, however, if it's redundant with "servant". Either way I'm just not going to stress it very much (I didn't put this in a front page menu). But I didn't write this article. The other Admins can decide if it stays or goes.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:02, July 25, 2014 (UTC) :::"A cupbearer is a servant, the designation suggests that the primarly duty is to serve wine but not at all!" :::"To be a cupbearer is a position that can be hold by a common born or a high born!" :::"It's not ununsual for noble boys during their time as a page or a squire to serve as a cupbearer, even noble girls can get this position as part of their education! The age doesn't matter, even a mature person can serve as a cupbearer, normally as a sign of trust and honour!" :::- The article's state when I wrote that. It comes off (to me) as telling us why cupbearers are great, and not telling us enough about what they do or how they fit into Westeros and Essos. Granted the article has become much better since then, but I still believe there should be a "servant" article with this as a section within it. Son Of Fire (talk) 08:03, July 25, 2014 (UTC) ::::The article was rewritten after a poor edit. This is not wikipedia where articles are required to meet notability standards. If you take a look at Wookiepedia, the ultimate example of what a wikia must aspire to, you'll notice they have an article for Hands (as in the apendage).--Gonzalo84 (talk) 20:24, August 10, 2014 (UTC) Well fine, then, there's as much reason to keep it as "Castellan" I suppose. ...I've been meaning to complain somewhere; Wookiepedia has a...highly detailed article on "Breasts". This...lowers Wookiepedia and its userbase. Have we fallen to this?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:08, August 11, 2014 (UTC) :Indeed those bodyparts articles are a lowpoint in Wookiepedia history.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 01:42, August 11, 2014 (UTC) Why keep Fore the same reason we keep articles such as: Master-at-arms, Castellan, Captain of the Guards, Stewards. We also have handmaidens... all of them are positions in a noble household. Come to think about it we also need an article for kennelmasters.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 20:28, August 10, 2014 (UTC) :But do you not think that a "servant" article would be better with this as a section in it? - Son Of Fire (talk) 22:09, August 10, 2014 (UTC) :No... because servant is such a broad term. Kingsguard are servants, fools are servants, squires are servants. Its better to be specific.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 23:31, August 10, 2014 (UTC)